What about, for example, Lost's characters is so terribly different from Dexter that it would make you believe it's not a top tier show? The not-so-caring but turns-into-Patch Adams doctor in Jack, the fat insecure comedian in Hurley, the tough red-neck with a checkered past in Sawyer? Gimme a break, talk about cliches. Except it doesn't matter because those characters are interesting, their background/stories are intersting (just like the characters in Dexter), and they're executed well. I won't even get into Lost's cheesy dialogue.

I'm sorry, did I mention Lost somewhere? Since you want to start talking about it, let's. In Season 1, which was Lost's only season as a top-tier show, they didn't employ any common cliches. The characters were interesting, and layered. You cared about each character and wondered what was really going on deep down. In Dexter, the titular character is the only one I really care about. Michael C. Hall is great. Outside of him, I don't really care about the other characters. The characters like Doakes and Laguerta annoy me more than anything else. And not in the way they're supposed to.

Quote:

And opinion is great, but you came in here acting all "surprised" at the praise Dexter getting when it is clearly one of the most unique shows out there.

No, I didn't. I came into this thread and said that while I am enjoying the show, I wouldn't give it the high praise it has gotten in this thread. Here is the actual quote:

"It's a good, entertaining, and out of the ordinary show, but I wouldn't call it great."

Why don't you just get it out of the way right now that you are "in the business" so your opinion must mean more than everyone else's, and end this non-sensical argument. What exactly are you arguing, anyway?

I'm sorry, did I mention Lost somewhere? Since you want to start talking about it, let's. In Season 1, which was Lost's only season as a top-tier show, they didn't employ any common cliches. The characters were interesting, and layered. You cared about each character and wondered what was really going on deep down.

And the common character cliches of Jack, Hurley, and Sawyer, all main characters, were still there in Season 1 too. I'm not just talking about Season 2 or 3.

Lost is great at making you wonder what'll happen next...and repeating ad nauseum. It's gotten worse, though still a good show, and the characters went nowhere during season 1. The character appeal was that you hoped their backstory buildup would take them somewhere cool latter. Which is an interesting angle certainly, been done before lots of times though. In Lost's case it was executed very well, though.

Quote:

In Dexter, the titular character is the only one I really care about. Michael C. Hall is great. Outside of him, I don't really care about the other characters. The characters like Doakes and Laguerta annoy me more than anything else. And not in the way they're supposed to.

Disagree.

Quote:

No, I didn't. I came into this thread and said that while I am enjoying the show, I wouldn't give it the high praise it has gotten in this thread. Here is the actual quote:

"It's a good, entertaining, and out of the ordinary show, but I wouldn't call it great."

What you actually said was that you "wouldn't give it nearly the high praise I'm seeing in this thread". I suppose "nearly" was a little misplaced there, because no one here that I can remember has called this the best show on TV or other similarly lavish praise.

Quote:

What exactly are you arguing, anyway?

Your claim that Dexter is more cliched than the best shows on TV. If you're saying the cliches on Dexter aren't as well executed as the cliches on other great shows, then fine, that's personal opinion.

Btw, if pure originality is as vital to you as it seems you are saying, how in the world can you call The Office one of the best shows on TV when several of its main characters are almost exact copies of the UK Office?

What you actually said was that you "wouldn't give it nearly the high praise I'm seeing in this thread". I suppose "nearly" was a little misplaced there, because no one here that I can remember has called this the best show on TV or other similarly lavish praise.

Well, considering a good amount of the comments consisted of such words as "awesome," "top-tier," and "great," I don't exactly see how what I said didn't apply.

Quote:

Btw, if pure originality is as vital to you as it seems you are saying, how in the world can you call The Office one of the best shows on TV when several of its main characters are almost exact copies of the UK Office?

Don't misconstrue words. I was talking simply about cliched characters. Even so, the US Office, past the first one or two episodes, is extremely different from the UK Office. While the show obviously took the same premise, the characters have become wholly different.

Well, considering a good amount of the comments consisted of such words as "awesome," "top-tier," and "great," I don't exactly see how what I said didn't apply.

Awesome and great describe it very well. Top tier, as in top 5 or whatever, you could argue is misplaced. Even then, I don't see anything wrong with that. The whole premise for the show is pretty darn unique (ignoring that it's contradictory and impossible to kill only "bad" people when you're sociopathic), and the main character/actor himself is undeniably top tier.

Quote:

Don't misconstrue words. I was talking simply about cliched characters. Even so, the US Office, past the first one or two episodes, is extremely different from the UK Office. While the show obviously took the same premise, the characters have become wholly different.

Come on, they have not become that different. The co-worker love angle, engagement and all, is there. The well-meaning ignorant boss who's socially inept with the same sexist/racist/etc. angle. The comic relief from the weird and offbeat nerd; in fact, Dwight views himself as Jim's nemesis just as Gareth viewed himself as Tim's nemesis in the UK version. All of this is the very core of the UK Office and it's absolutely still the core of the US Office. The only big difference is the way Dwight has developed. Still clearly similar and about as close to a replica as you're going to get, except the UK Office was better, because it was as brillantly original as original gets.

To a person that thinks it's awesome and great, which I don't. Hence, I wouldn't give it nearly the praise it's gotten in this thread.

Quote:

Come on, they have not become that different. The co-worker love angle, engagement and all, is there. The well-meaning ignorant boss who's socially inept with the same sexist/racist/etc. angle. The comic relief from the weird and offbeat nerd; in fact, Dwight views himself as Jim's nemesis just as Gareth viewed himself as Tim's nemesis in the UK version. All of this is the very core of the UK Office and it's absolutely still the core of the US Office. The only big difference is the way Dwight has developed. Still clearly similar and about as close to a replica as you're going to get, except the UK Office was better, because it was as brillantly original as original gets.

Some plot points remain, which will always happen when you adapt one show into another. If they didn't keep any storylines, then continuity from the first season would be completely broken. But, the characters themselves are not the same. Michael is not the same a David. David is pathetic, annoying, vindictive, and a real *******. There is no good in him. Michael, on the other hand, it just like a little kid. You know that he's a good guy, he's just extremely ignorant and uninformed. He means well, though.

As for which show is better. I originally saw the UK Office first. After watching the first half of the US Season 1, I still liked the UK one a good deal more. Then, after the second half of Season 1, I started enjoying the US one much more than before, but still enjoyed the UK one more. Then, Season 2 US came, and it was one of the best seasons of TV I've seen. I enjoy the US one more far and away, now. The UK version made me feel bad when all was said and done. The US one always makes me happy. It's the better show.

Some plot points remain, which will always happen when you adapt one show into another. If they didn't keep any storylines, then continuity from the first season would be completely broken. But, the characters themselves are not the same. Michael is not the same a David. David is pathetic, annoying, vindictive, and a real *******. There is no good in him. Michael, on the other hand, it just like a little kid. You know that he's a good guy, he's just extremely ignorant and uninformed. He means well, though.

I don't think it's clear David didn't mean well; if anything just the opposite. Mike is pathetic, like a child or not he's so pathetic it's uncomfortable at times (not as much as David though, obviously). Still, the overall story lines of the US Office are not original. Just saying.

Quote:

As for which show is better. I originally saw the UK Office first. After watching the first half of the US Season 1, I still liked the UK one a good deal more. Then, after the second half of Season 1, I started enjoying the US one much more than before, but still enjoyed the UK one more. Then, Season 2 US came, and it was one of the best seasons of TV I've seen. I enjoy the US one more far and away, now. The UK version made me feel bad when all was said and done. The US one always makes me happy. It's the better show.

I see what you mean. The UK verison definitely made you feel bad, not just because of David getting booted but because he was always getting worked over in the most painful of ways. I definitely agree that Season 2 of the US Office is much better than Season 1 and definitely can compete with the UK version.

For the record what I meant by "top tier" was that its: not low tier garbage, not middle of the road...thats decent, but rather above both of those classes with the truely good television thats on at the moment. It may not be better than the wire or the office but it is better than most of the rest. I'd put it slightly above or around the same level as something like heroes and mayyyybe friday night lights. Two shows that are another example of cliche's done in an effective enough way that they are entertaining throughout.

I wasn't sure, but I was pretty confident that the doctor was the ITK when I first saw him as well. The fact that he, as already mentioned, MAKES BODY PARTS, was putting them on this particular guy, and said something to the effect of "Be careful with this one, he's wild" in reference to the security guard put it together for me real quick. I thought to myself "wait...this guy is making his first appearance in the show, presumably barely knows this guy with multiple amputations, and somehow knows enough about him to say that he's 'wild'? AND he makes prosthetic body parts?" Gotta be the ITK.

I think it has progressed beyond my expectations. With all of last season building to one final climax this show could have easily lost stride but it hasn't. It has managed to stay interesting and intelligent with a kind of complexity of character that is very rare in Tv these days.

From what I've seen the show's change of direction has gotten a mixed reaction amongst fans (mostly negative actually.) Personally I've been enjoying it, but I can see why others are upset with it.